*Myself pictured with Daniel Choi on December 18, 2011. Choi was also in attendance at Fort Meade, MD. You can hear him describe the abuse he experienced at Fort Meade, MD on December 19, 2021 on democracynow.org. He was reportedly thrown to the ground, handcuffed, had his rank ripped off his unifom, and was forcibly ejected from the pretrial proceedings.

I sat next to or near Daniel Choi in the courtroom on both Saturday afternoon and Sunday morning. I only saw Daniel Choi behaving in a respectful manner during the proceedings or while the court was at recess - both in the gallery or on the premises. The Federal Police Officers began watching the public in attendance more overtly - even hanging around to watch us outside the security perimeter of the courthouse - when Daniel Choi showed up on Saturday.

Unlike Friday all day, and Saturday morning, when Daniel Choi was not in the public gallery, Bradley Manning exited with armed soldiers through the public gallery when recesses were called or at the end of the day.

Starting Saturday afternoon - after Daniel Choi showed up - the public was told to leave the gallery before the guards would even move Bradley Manning, or Bradley Manning was exited through the back.

In fact, after the morning's proceedings on December 18, 2011, I moved to a back row on the defense side of the gallery, and away from Daniel and the others who were talking at a recess. I did this in order to collect myself for the task of transcription.

From my new position, I watched one unidentified, caucasian, middle-aged man in a dark suit wearing glasses with dark curly hair - stand and lean against the middle pew on the prosecution side of the gallery - 3 feet away from Daniel Choi and a little back.

This man watched Choi - never once lifting his eyes for about five minutes - until he caught me looking at him watching Choi in a like manner to himself. He then looked over at one of the soldiers guarding the proceeding, who was dressed in a similar military uniform as Daniel. They both raised their eyebrows at each other.

I had arrived at the Fort Meade, MD courthouse at 8:00 a.m. on December 18, 2011. The following 32 pages of typed transcript were taken by hand and may contain errors, misspellings of names, and or may be incomplete.

The Investigation Officer is Paul Almanza, an Army Reserve Lieutenant Colonel and Justice Department prosecutor.

Defense is Mr. David Coombs, Major Matthew Kemkes, and Captain Paul Bouchard.

Day began with prosecution and defense teams exiting the courtroom together - possibly to meet in chambers for an R.C.M. 802 conference. They exited together through the back. At one point, a member of the prosecution returned and told the gallery that it would be 5 more minutes.

[If I am not mistaken, one matter had been left open and awaiting prosecution's response. It may have been regarding the defense's request regarding a written response from prosecution about the information that the U.S. government had in its possession, and particularly the F.B.I., remember that on December 17, 2011 Coombs had said:

Defense (Coombs): What exactly does the government have? One. Does it exist? Two. Do they have authorization? If you deem it irrelevant, it does not stop at trial counsel. I would like that to go on record...and disclose the State Department, FBI, and DOJ.

I am not sure if this was the matter being discussed by defense and prosecution. The previous night prosecution had asked for more time for review regarding a matter...]

[Defense arrives. Prosecution arrives. Investigating Officer calls the hearing to order. Speech to gallery on "decorum and dignity" of the courtroom. ]

Fulton: Because in order to...they have to be able to pull information from different class levels.

Prosecution: Are you familiar with their training?

Fulton: Yes.

Prosecution: What is operational training?

Fulton: How basic things you may do can compromise security. For example, if you post a picture of yourself on base on FaceBook, although your intent might not be to compromise security, the enemy can use the information against U.S. forces.

Prosecution: 35 Foxes learn that?

Fulton: Yes.

Prosecution: What is infosec?

[Defense OBJECTION Coombs walks right up to the witness booth past prosecution at the center podium, and begins questioning Fulton.]

Defense (Coombs): Have you ever been an instructor of 35 Foxes?

Fulton: No. But, I have assisted in their training.

Defense: Ten day trainings?

I.O. to Prosecution: Do you have any additional questions to lay foundation?

Prosecution: How many new junior enlisted soldiers?

Fulton: At least seven currently...and I don't know who else arrived.

Prosecution: Out of those ten, any receive AIT at your unit?

Fulton: Yes.

Prosecution: Did they receive other training?

[Defense OBJECTION Leading. I.O. OVERRULES.]

Prosecution: So any training they would receive from AIT [Advanced Individual Training]?

Fulton: TOP SECRET is top secret...SECRET has certain caveats...UNCLASSIFIED...CONFIDENTIAL.

Prosecution: Can you give me an example?

Fulton: UNCLASSIFIED has a green mark top and bottom...SECRET...top and bottom.

Prosecution: How about in a digital system?

Fulton: Same way...

Prosecution: As part of InfoSec training, what is presumption...?

[Defense OBJECTION Re: Training. I.O. OVERRULES.]

Prosecution: So as part of training what is taught about what a soldier is to presume?

Fulton: Unauthorized disclosure.

Prosecution: Why?

Fulton: ...responsibility there is of no unauthorized disclosure of authorized info...

Prosecution: Why?

Fulton: Because if it's marked CLASSIFIED, it is CLASSIFIED.

Prosecution: Is it the job of the analyst to determine classification?

Fulton: No. If it is marked CLASSIFIED, assume it is CLASSIFIED.

Prosecution: Why is that?

Fulton: [She pauses. Throughout the prosecutions questioning of her, she takes very long pauses to answer her questions. Like she has to search for answers.] Because that is done by someone in authority.

Prosecution: You have authority?

Fulton: No.

Prosecution: Anyone in your group?

Fulton: No.

Prosecution: Has to be appointed by the Secretary of the Army. Is that so?

Fulton: I believe so.

Prosecution: [Missed question]

Fulton: There is an ability to chat with other analysts...pulls database...provides map like diagram...personality based.

Prosecution: A dual user interface...does it require fields, or is it a blank slate...? [Prosecution searches for a way to explain the user interface intelligibly. He uses Microsoft Word as an example of a 'blank slate' ...in my opinion his question was stated very unclearly...]

Fulton: I think fields.

Prosecution: Is there a classification field?

Fulton: I don't know.

Prosecution: What sort of fields exist?

Fulton: Assassinations. Threats...

Prosecution: Dust worm procedures...?

Fulton: Yes.

Prosecution: What is that?

Fulton: When military are kidnapped.

Prosecution: Grid quadrants?

Fulton: Yes.

Prosecution: Sources of Intel provided to members of Army in Iraq?

Fulton: There could be...[She then asks...] Are you talking about CIDNE or Significant Activity?

Prosecution: Does the CIDNE database contain information of the coordinates of US forces?

Fulton: Yes.

Prosecution: Between 2009 and 2010 how U.S. forces reacted to I.E.D. attacks?

Fulton: Yes.

[Defense OBJECTION Relevance.]

Defense: Pfc. Manning is not charged with CIDNE database...and as I understand...no SigActs...

[I.O. SUSTAINS..."Briefly." Defense (Coombs) gets up and walks over to witness booth past prosecution who is standing at the center podium in the courtroom.]

Defense: CIDNE database has a lot of info...SigActs are a small part?

Fulton: I would say small.

Defense: SigActs won't have source names?

Fulton: Depends on how it is written.

Defense: So the SigActs that my client is charged with...whole bunch...not other stuff?

[An argument between defense and prosecution ensues over what Pfc. Manning is charged with and how relevant prosecution's questions are...defense or prosecution says, unclear who. Needs verification as to who is speaking, "He is charged with CIDNE-Iraq and SigAct-Iraq..."]

Prosecution: So we are talking about different types of information...December 2009 to January 2010...different indirect fire methods, techniques, tactics, and procedures...?

Fulton: Yes.

Prosecution: ...for enemy attacks?

Fulton: Yes.

Prosecution: Different techniques for I.E.D. attacks?

Fulton: Yes.

Prosecution: Different techniques for rescue?

Fulton: Yes.

Prosecution: When we stated...talk about the system? What is Intelink?

Fulton: It is a system.

Prosecution: Where do you find it?

Fulton: On SIPRnet.

Prosecution: How is it used?

Fulton: Where you would try to find information...not readily available.

Prosecution: What type of information would come back?

Fulton: PowerPoint presentations, reports, word documents which would be reports...

Prosecution: Was that undertaken by 35 Foxes on a daily basis?

Fulton: Maybe not.

Prosecution: Weekly?

Fulton: Yes.

Prosecution: When you arrived in Iraq what were your duties?

Fulton: Doing all analysis of future threat.

Prosecution: What kind?

Fulton: When creating a future operations order...in order to help the commander, you need you need to understand what they are going to do first.

Prosecution: What kinds of things do you want to know?

Fulton: Everything you can know about the enemy.

Prosecution: Did 35 Foxes help?

Fulton: Yes. They are comprehensive projects in a condensed timeline. Easier to shop out (research parts)...

Prosecution: Who relied on these products?

Fulton: The commander.

Prosecution: Can you give an example? How would you give a question and get an answer from a 35 Fox?

Fulton: If we had a fire threat...use D6 to search all indirect fire threats to lay info of in operational environment...then take all human reporting...pull HUMINT [Human Intelligence] and the enemy threat network: Which routes? How they travel? Where they store munitions? And then would direct assets on the ground for collection of Intelligence...to disruption zones...enemy locations or prevent attacks.

Prosecution: Disruption zones?

Fulton: Enemy intends to disrupt but not to defeat.

Prosecution: Overlays?

Fulton: Taking information and overlaying it on top of each other.

Prosecution: Sit temp [I am not certain if this is the correct spelling of a word or if the word is slang]?

Fulton: Situational locations of the enemy.

Prosecution: Cache locations?

Fulton: Cache?

[Prosecutor apologizes for mispronouncing cache with two syllables.]

Fulton: Where they store munitions.

Prosecution: How would 35 Foxes get the information?

Fulton: ...pull from CIDNE...most came from CIDNE.

Prosecution: Would a person not familiar with the system be able to pull information?

Fulton: Yes.

Prosecution: Why?

Fulton: Because it has to be filtered. For example. Query-Tree uses bullion logic...combination of words...otherwise superfluous...same with CIDNE, needs to be filtered.

Prosecution: If you relied on "all source" they would have to pull it through...?

Fulton: Correct.

Prosecution: When did you become an Intel officer?

Fulton: Late January.

Prosecution: Mission?

Fulton: To provide best threat product to commander. Our focus was election security.

Prosecution: When?

Fulton: March.

Prosecution: Main focus March 2010 F.O.B. Hammer?

Fulton: Yes.

Prosecution: Other focuses?

Fulton: Before that?

Prosecution: Day to day?

Fulton: Disrupt enemy operations.

Prosecution: Where was your office?

Fulton: In S.C.I.F.

Prosecution: What is "S.C.I.F."?

Fulton: Specialized Compartmentalized Information [She pauses.] I do not know.

[S.C.I.F. stands for "Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility"]

Prosecution: What does it stand for?

Fulton: Good question.

Prosecution: Did Manning work in the S.C.I.F.?

Fulton: Yes.

Prosecution: Your office was in the S.C.I.F.?

Fulton: Yes...Back room was [indecipherable] Signals.

Prosecution: What is NIPRnet?

Fulton: Unclassified. SIPRnet up to SECRET.

Prosecution: Did any "all source" analysts have access to higher access?

Fulton: No.

Prosecution: ...ability to discuss?

Fulton: Yes.

Prosecution: Highest level you could access was SECRET?

Fulton: Yes.

Prosecution: Requirement to burn C.D.s?

Fulton: The reason for the ability to burn C.D.'s was to share information with Iraqis. It was part of the mission.

Prosecution: Allowed for any other means?

Fulton: No.

Prosecution: While deployed with Second Brigade... [indecipherable maybe "description] ...of general security?

Fulton: Don't release info to family. Don't go on FaceBook.

Prosecution: What about InfoSec?

[Defense OBJECTION Unsure of I.O.'s ruling. Indecipherable.]

Prosecution: Were computers on shared network accessed by "all Source"?

Fulton: Yes.

Prosecution: Classification?

Fulton: SECRET.

Prosecution: What were rules of pulling information off network?

Fulton: [She asks] Accessing?

Prosecution: Yes.

Fulton: There weren't any restrictions because it was a shared network. It was easier to move information back and forth.

Prosecution: Rules for pulling information off?

Fulton: No way you would pull off information that wasn't pertinent.

Prosecution: What makes it appear classified?

Fulton: That it is on a classified system or a machine that is classified. If there is information on a classified system, once something is on a classified system, assumed classified and cannot put on an unclassified...

Prosecution: How was authorization for the 2nd Brigade tech...maintain [indecipherable]?

Fulton: Don't know.

Prosecution: Pull to a personal computer?

Fulton: ...because that is unauthorized disclosure.

Prosecution: Is that something 35 Foxes would know?

Fulton: At minimum they signed SF312 a Non Disclosure Agreement. They also have been trained.

Prosecution: Is that supervised one hundred percent of the time?

Fulton: Impossible.

Prosecution: Why?

Fulton: Because of limited amount of supervision.

Prosecution: What do you rely on?

Fulton: That they have understanding of their job and take pride in their work.

Prosecution: What were Manning's strengths?

Fulton: He was very good at compiling data.

Prosecution: Can you give me an example?

Fulton: I had him work with D6...laying Human Intel onto a map...He could import and export Excel spreadsheets... So looking at number of spreadsheets...easier to use excel than input one at a time.

Prosecution: How often?

Fulton: Occasionally.

Prosecution: Would he have to have an understanding of the data?

Fulton: Yes.

Prosecution: Full time duties?

Fulton: Violent extremist threat...

Prosecution: Based on that, was there a reason for him to be investigating G.T.M.O. S.O.P.'s?

Fulton: No. Not regarding Iraq.

Prosecution: A reason for him to be searching for Iceland?

Fulton: No.

Prosecution: For Julian Assange on SIPRnet?

Fulton: No.

Prosecution: 15-6 investigations?

Fulton: No.

Prosecution: S.J.A. [Staff Judge Advocate] Web site?

Fulton: No.

Prosecution: Pulling all the data from the CIDNE-Afghanistan database?

Fulton: No.

Prosecution: Were you aware of the 2007 Apache video?

Fulton: [Specialist] Schulman [Jihrleah] Showman was playing on personal computer before April 1 [2010].

Prosecution: What computer?

Fulton: Her work station comp.

Prosecution: She had it on SIPRnet system?

Fulton: Yes.

Prosecution: So a classified system?

Fulton: Yes.

Prosecution: When did you become aware?

Fulton: Not sure. It wasn't exactly... didn't really know until Manning was arrested.

Prosecution: Did you ever have a conversation about the video?

Fulton: I asked group if they had seen the video, and how that would affect us if it became public in a deployed environment. Manning said, "No. That is the same video on our shared drive." I said, "No. It is shorter." I would have to compare...last verbal conversation...

Prosecution: Did you have non-verbal conversation about the video?

Fulton: He sent email with two video clips, one of the Apache video, both side by side.

Prosecution: Was the video released through the Internet the one on your shared drive?

Fulton: That was the indication. Not sure.

Prosecution: Email is on SIPRnet?

Fulton: Yes. SIPRnet

Prosecution: Captain Fulton, were you aware of an Army investigation related to that video?

Fulton: Not sure.

[Defense cross-examines the witness.]

Defense (Coombs): Became part...2009?

Fulton: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): Your duty was Assistant S2?

Fulton: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): Deploy as S2 Plans Officer?

Fulton: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): You worked out of the SCIF on operation orders for election security?

Fulton: Yes.

[Coombs would often use this style for cross-examination of witnesses. He would conduct a recap narrative-like, easy going exchange, which required a simple yes or no. More often, simply yes to his line of argument. He did this in the way a dog might urinate on a neighborhood fence, and not in a rude manner. He simply made the story his, so you forgot the prosecutors' in his retelling. Coombs also used his intellect as much as he used physical space in the courtroom. In a confident and graceful manner, he simply asserted himself between the nervous prosecutors and the show dog I.O., the way a real alpha defense lawyer like Coombs could.]

Defense (Coombs): Did a lot of work from November 2009 to 2010 that had to be completed in a timely manner?

Fulton: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): You would go to him because he was good with computers?

Fulton: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): Go to him because he was interested in the topics?

Fulton: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): Sometimes he would find information for you based on discussions you had had?

Fulton: Yes. [Her voice got softer as Coombs line of questions continued, and I got the feeling she exhibited compassion, perhaps even liked Manning.]

Defense (Coombs): Exciting to have someone like Manning?

Fulton: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): Didn't believe he was a good analyst?

Fulton: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): ...because they needed to grow?

Fulton: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): Not like being an analyst is an easy thing?

Fulton: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): He was still learning?

Fulton: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): So because he was still learning, he was just tasked to get the data?

Fulton: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): Then you would do analysis?

Fulton: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): Your way of training was to ask questions?

Fulton: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): Not surprising, you would even go through the data, even though he was not an analyst [Need verification. I think this is where he asked her if she would go through the data with Manning.]?

Defense (Coombs): You had your back to --- because you were on the phone --- and you heard [Specialist] Schulman [Jihrleah] Showman was irritated with Pfc. Manning?

Fulton: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): And she was irritated because he was playing a game?

Fulton: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): You knew Manning had already looked for the information?

Fulton: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): You heard Manning say, "You need to calm down," to [Specialist] Schulman [Jihrleah] Showman...with [Specialist] Schulman [Jihrleah] Showman on the ground... [I did not write down the entire question, may have been two questions]?

Fulton: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): She had said he had struck her, and she had a red mark on her face?

Fulton: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): You told [Master Sergeant] Adkins that --- needed to be taken from him...needed to go to behavioral specialist because that was the standard response?

Fulton: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): Why?

Fulton: What do you mean? When you have an interaction like that between soldiers...I wanted him removed...especially in a deployed environment...you want to find out what is wrong.

Defense (Coombs): Did you feel that a 'derog' was necessary?

Fulton: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): Derog, his security clearance suspended, revoked?

Fulton: Yes.

Defense (Coombs): Derog...call into question of whether they should have security clearance...some examples of reasons for derog are: Behavioral...lying to superiors...?

Defense (Coombs): You thought mIRC was mission critical - running as an executable?

Madaras: If that is what it does, Sir.

Defense (Coombs): You thought it allowed you to do your job?

Madaras: Yes...communicate with other units.

Defense (Coombs): So if someone wanted to add information to a D6 machine how would you go about doing that?

Madaras: I don't know.

Defense (Coombs): And that is because you don't know much about computers...

Madaras: Yes, Sir.

[I am not certain if the prosecution re-examined Madaras, I have a note regarding prosecution asking him about the non disclosure agreement soldiers signed. Witness is excused permanently.]

Time did not permit me to stay due to a long drive back to New York City and work related responsibilities. I reluctantly left Fort Meade.

[END OF TRANSCRIPT BUT NOT END OF DAY]

MISSED JASON MILLIMAN.

MISSED CAPTAIN THOMAS CHEREPKO.

MISSED CLOSED SESSION WHICH INCLUDED "RELEVANT GOVERNMENT AGENCIES"

MISSED TESTIMONY AND FIRST APPEARANCE OF SPECIAL AGENT DAVID SHAVER

This is the end of the transcriber's transcript of December 18, 2011 Article 32 Pretrial hearing of US v. Pfc. Bradley Manning, but it was not the end of the day. There was a closed session which allowed also "relevant Government agencies" and the first appearance of Special Agent David Shaver, Computer Crimes Investigative Unit [CCIU]. For those and all the other witnesses see Rainey Reitman's Detailed Notes and Kevin Gosztola's Live Blog.